Showlag v Mansour [1992] JLR 219 (28 October 1992)
- Citation
- [1992] JLR 219
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Civil / Judgment
More details
- Posture
- Civil / Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that in Jersey, the priority in time between two foreign judgments is not conclusive for the application of estoppel (chose jugee), and reliance on subsequent proceedings after prior consistent judgments may be barred, but the effect of prior conflicting judgments remains uncertain.
Court disposition
undetermined
02
Material facts
Parties
Showlag
ApplicantMansour
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the doctrine of estoppel (chose jugee) applies in Jersey when there are multiple foreign judgments, particularly where those judgments are conflicting or consistent.
- 02
Whether priority in time between two foreign judgments is conclusive in the application of the doctrine in Jersey.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant relied on prior consistent foreign judgments to support their claim and argued for their recognition in Jersey.
- Respondent
- Respondent challenged the application of estoppel based on the existence of conflicting or multiple foreign judgments and questioned the priority in time as a determining factor.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
[1992] JLR 219
Priority in time between two foreign judgments is not conclusive in the application of the doctrine of estoppel (chose jugee) in Jersey.
- 02
[1992] JLR 219
Reliance on third or subsequent proceedings following prior consistent judgments may be barred, but the rule as to prior conflicting judgments is less clear.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that in Jersey, the priority in time between two foreign judgments is not conclusive for the application of estoppel (chose jugee), and reliance on subsequent proceedings after prior consistent judgments may be barred, but the effect of prior conflicting judgments remains uncertain.
Obiter and limits
- The rule as to the effect of prior conflicting foreign judgments in Jersey is less clear and may require further judicial consideration.
Court disposition
undetermined
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [
DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:
BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Showlag v Mansour [1992] JLR 219 (28 October 1992) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1992/JLR920219.html Cite as: [1992] JLR 219 [ New search ] [ Help ] Showlag v Mansour 1992 JLR 219 (28 October 1992) Estoppel - chose jugee - scope of doctrine - priority in time between two foreign judgments not conclusive in application of doctrine in Jersey-reliance on third or subsequent proceedings following prior consistent judgments may be barred but rule as to prior conflicting judgments less clear The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 1992 JLR 219 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1992/JLR920219.html
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.